| ▲ | amatecha 8 hours ago |
| Google literally just settled for $68m about this very issue https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/26/google-pr... > Google agreed to pay $68m to settle a lawsuit claiming that its voice-activated assistant spied inappropriately on smartphone users, violating their privacy. Apple as well https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/03/apple-sir... |
|
| ▲ | monocularvision 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| “Google denied wrongdoing but settled to avoid the risk, cost and uncertainty of litigation, court papers show.” I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not. |
| |
| ▲ | caminante 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The payout was not pennies and this case had been around since 2019, surviving multiple dismissal attempts. While not an "admission of wrongdoing," it points to some non-zero merit in the plaintiff's case. | |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No corporate body ever admits wrongdoing and that's part of the problem. Even when a company loses its appeals, it's virtually unheard of for them to apologize, usually you just get a mealy mouthed 'we respect the court's decision although it did not go the way we hoped.' Accordingly, I don't give denials of wrongdoing any weight at all. I don't assume random accusations are true, but even when they are corporations and their officers/spokespersons are incentivized to lie. | |
| ▲ | stackghost 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not. It absolutely is. If they knew without a doubt their equipment (that they produce) doesn't eavesdrop, then why would they be concerned about "risk [...] and uncertainty of litigation"? | | |
| ▲ | gildenFish 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is not. The belief that it does is just a comforting delusion people believe to avoid reality. Large companies often forgo fighting cases that will result in a Pyrrhic victory. Also people already believe google (and every other company) eavesdrops on them, going to trail and winning the case people would not change that. | | |
| ▲ | stackghost 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That doesn't answer my question. By their own statement they are concerned about the risks and uncertainty of litigation. Again: If their products did not eavesdrop, precisely what risks and uncertainty are they afraid of? | | |
| ▲ | caminante 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm giving parent benefit of the doubt, but I'm chuckling at the following scenarios: (1) Alphabet admits wrongdoing, but gets an innocent verdict (2) Alphabet receives a verdict of wrongdoing, but denies it and the parent using either to claim lack of > some admission of wrongdoing The court's designed to settle disputes more than render verdicts. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | romanows 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The next sentence under the headline is "Tech company denied illegally recording and circulating private conversations to send phone users targeted ads". |
| |
| ▲ | caminante 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a worthless indicator of objective innocence. It's a private, civil case that settled. To not deny wrongdoing (even if guilty) would be insanely rare. | | |
| ▲ | romanows 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Obviously. The point is that settling a lawsuit in this way is also a worthless indicator of wrongdoing. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > settling a lawsuit in this way is also a worthless indicator of wrongdoing Only if you use a very narrow criteria that a verdict was reached. However, that's impractical as 95% of civil cases resolve without a trial verdict. Compare this to someone who got the case dismissed 6 years ago and didn't pay out tens of millions of real dollars to settle. It's not a verdict, but it's dishonest to say the plaintiff's case had zero merit of wrongdoing based on the settlement and survival of the plaintiff's case. |
|
|
|
